Someone Please Explain To Me - The Theory that Jupiter Ignited - while behind the Sun right now

I would like to agree with you Phage, if it were not for those detected high energy particles and the absence of any markant sunspots.
For such significant impacts on our magnetosphere a substantial CME from the near-side is needed to hit us directly.

tTo come back to the high energy particles.
They loose energy very fast on their way through space (magnetic field line crossing), so the source has to be "near". I already read an article
about this but am unable to produce it right now

Even though the masses of these particles are small, the value of c² compensates for this, thus making the energy of these tiny particles
relatively large.
Interestingly enough the most energetic proton detected in the cosmic rays coming in from space had a kinetic energy of 3.0 ´ 1020 eV, about 48.1
J.
This has "enough energy to warm a teaspoon of water by a few degrees” (Halliday) and can be compared to the energy of a golf ball[1] travelling at
about 45.8 m/s (164.8 km/hr).

These particles are able to substantially heat the upper atmosphere.
And they did it on jan.22.

While low-energy cosmic rays such as the solar wind cause ionization in the upper atmosphere, muons cause most of the ionization in the lower
atmosphere. When a muon ionizes a gas molecule, it strips away an electron, making that molecule into a positive ion. The electron is soon captured,
either by another gas molecule turning it into a negative ion, or it may find an already ionized positive ion and neutralize it (this is called
recombination). There is a balance between ionization and recombination, and so there is a fairly constant density of positive and negative ions in
the atmosphere. But there is a difference between the types of molecules that become negative ions and the ones that are positive. On average, the
negative ions are more "mobile" than the positive ones, and this results in the fact that there is an electric field in atmosphere. On a normal
quiet day, this electric field is about 100 Volts per meter. When a thunder shower forms, there is an as yet not completely understood mechanism that
tends to lift the negative ions up while pushing the positive ones down. This changes the electric field strength to tens of thousands of Volts/meter.
When the field strength becomes too high, a discharge occurs: lightning. Clearly, without ionization, thunder and lightning would not happen, so
cosmic rays have a direct influence on the types of weather we can have on earth.

There is also evidence that there is a correlation between cosmic ray flux and low-altitude cloud formation. Now, correlation does not always imply
causation, and it is also known that the sun is slightly brighter if it is more active, which may also affect cloud formation on earth. But it is at
least possible that cosmic rays could have something to do with it. There is a possible mechanism for this: elevated levels of ionization seem to
facilitate the coagulation of such molecules as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) in the atmosphere into tiny droplets, which then form condensation nuclei for
water vapor. The condensed droplets of water then form clouds. For further information, see for example:

* Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate

If you´d like to disprove me, Phage, I would also like you to find an explanation for this hit on us when SGR 1550-5418 roared to life in
oct/2008.
Here is the impact video :

here are the GBM triggers for that day for that SGR (scroll down
for 2008)

It's not my task to prove you wrong. It is your task to prove the claim that the pulsar has affected the sun and/or the magnetosphere and atmosphere.
I'm pointing to problems with your evidence. If you can resolve the problems it will help your case.

Please read your sources more closely and pay more attention before trying to connect them with the topic (you should have started a new thread, btw).
They are both referring to cosmic rays. The pulsar has flared in its output of gamma and x-rays. Cosmic rays are not the same as x-rays. Cosmic rays
are high energy particles. X-rays are electromagnetic radiation. Completely different animals.

The gamma and x-rays were detected by extremely sensitive instruments. Though very "bright" in comparison to other sources, the actual amount of
energy is very small after having traveled 30,000 light years.

As I pointed out, a much more powerful flare in 2004 did have a very small effect on the ionosphere. It did not affect the lower atmosphere or the
magnetosphere in any appreciable way.

Can you show me any evidence of an increase in cosmic ray count attributable to the pulsar?

Why is there apparently no effect shown in the magnetosphere simulator by other bright flares in this series from the neutron star?

I'm not an astrophysicist. I wouldn't begin to claim to know all the things that can affect the magnetosphere but since the October pulse seems to
come from the same direction as the solar wind, I would guess that the Sun burped, as it often does.

But as I said, you claim it is related to the pulsar, it is up to you to prove the relationship. To do this you must explain how gamma and x-rays
moving at the speed of light can affect the shape of the magnetosphere (or affect the sun). You must then demonstrate that the radiation from the
pulsar was sufficiently intense (and coming from the right direction) to cause what you claim are the effects.

Because two things happen at the same time is not enough to prove they are related.

My apologies for beating this dead horse, but here's my fresh image of Jupiter from this morning using a 2x barlow, my 8" LX200 and Meade LPI. Best
I can do with what is the worst seeing I've ever tried to image through. Jupiter's cloud bands are clearly visible, as before. Also, I took a
second image overexposed with less magnification to show some of the moons and prove that they're in their proper places (using a flipped overlay
from stellarium); not what you'd expect if jupiter had exploded or ignited (what with all those claims of visible "shockwaves" and all).

Well done NGC! If I could get my wife off of her gun buying kick right now I'd get a new scope. I showed her a cool little observatory dome we can
set up in the backyard and I think she might be swaying now. Keep your fingers crossed for me

Thanks! Actually, I'd like to get off my astrophotography buying kick for a while and get into a gun buying kick if the wife would let me. One of
these days I'll have to swap kicks with your wife (sorry if that came out wrong lol). Actually, I know for a fact that my equipment can do much
better than the above Jupiter picture, but as you know it's hard to get anything sharp out of an object some 10-20 degrees over the horizon,
especially when staring across tubrulent air over a body of water.

I can relate to that. I couldn't believe how good that Jupiter pic I took came out using that Celestron. It's a nice little scope but it ain't
the best. I modified it some by taking the back off and breaking out the little glass "baffle" sealing off the eyepiece holder from the interior of
the scope which brightened the imaging quite a bit.

Now my wife has confiscated my 60mm Stellarvue to use as her target spotting scope

I think the thread title needs to be changed. No one is talking about Jupiter being ignited. Beside, my cat watched the video and could see that it
was a lens flare. Reword the thread. I vote for "Jupiter/Lens Flare: The Ignition Of The Overzealous."

I just want to say to ngchunter, thanks for the photo. I hope you keep an eye on Jupiter, if you notice anything out of the ordinary take another shot
of it and post it. I just read an article on fourwinds10.com about Jupiter that he posted because i sent him the video a while back. Someone
recently wrote about it saying he has a contact in Greece that says something is definitely happening with Jupiter but won't be seen for a while. I
also e-mailed a person who knows Sheldan Nidle, I asked her to ask him about Jupiter. He said he doesn't resonate with Jupiter becoming a sun. He
also said that stars are NOT nuclear fusion reactors. He said he didn't know the exact temperature of the surface of the sun but it was cooler than
thought. He gets into it in his dvd "Journey To Joy". It's similar to Hoagland's Hyperdimensional Physics. It's a bit too complicated to explain.
I do want show people some superb info. from the Reincarnated Edgar Casey. His name is David Wilcock. I have seen him at UFO events and talked to him.
His info. is mind blowing. Check it out. www.youtube.com...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.